Operation Mincemeat

Just watched Operation Mincemeat. Having recently read Ben McIntyre's book of Operation Mincemeat.

I hope the filmmakers read all the reviews, which basically say the same thing about ridiculous subplots If I want to watch a romantic movie, I will follow Bridget Jones. I prefer war movies.

Will filmmakers STOP mixing the two together, it does NOT appeal to a larger audience Equally, STOP trying to re invent the wheel, first we had the Jerky camera period, which no one liked, now we have the fad for showing the almost ending, then going back to...6 months earlier..etc The man who never was is a better film because of not including romantic fictional subplots I suggest filmmakers watch movies from the 1950s to see well crafted film making, Eg The Cockleshell Heroes or One of our planes is missing, both told in chronological time order.

On another note, if you want a massive box office hit, read The Black Ship, by Dudley Pope. A meticulously researched book about the "Bloodiest" Mutiny in the history of the Royal Navy But please make sure you observe correct military protocols, you do not salute improperly dressed officers, ie when not wearing their hat !

Operation Mincemeat is a film with very few bells and whistles.

It has an interesting story to tell, and it tells it well enough, however unnecessary romantic subplots make the whole thing 20 minutes too long.

I think the pacing is a little off as they place the focus too much on the establishment of the plan and not enough on how it pans out.

The performances are all fine. Nothing overly flashy. There is a good feel to the film, capturing the period well.

Overall a perfectly decent film, worth watching to learn about a remarkable and crucial military operation, but there's nothing particularly remarkable about the filmmaking.

It was enjoyable enough but I really wanted to enjoy this more than I did.

It seemed to unnecessarily labour several male characters fancying Kelly Macdonald's character. All the time taken up on this tiresome sub-plot would have been better spent on some of the main story. Also, a triple-agent character giving a hand job to someone just seemed unlikely and out of place.

One of several nods to James Bond was an unfeasibly high-powered buzzsaw watch as a throwaway gag (because of Ian Fleming being a character) was corny and distracting.

I somehow expected it would be more engaging, gritty and revealing than the 1956 film, but it seemed pretty typical and formulaic like many modern British WWII themed films with foiled wartime romances crow-barred in.

There are some great actors in the film but some of them seem to be overused in other similar roles the same era. It even seemed a little like a mini "Death of Stalin" reunion for Jason Isaacs and Simon Russell Beale.

Perhaps I'm being too unkind to the film, but I was looking forward to it and fell a little short of expectations.

OMG! Please. Really. This is one of the most incredible stories out of WWII and "they" had to toss in a love story that took away so much from the real story, it was sad.

And yes, it is FAR too long. OMG, I wanted to take a nap!

Having those two officers acting like high school jocks over The Girl was pathetic. And sad. What a waste of one hella story.

It is amazing what people can come up with they have to, though, isn't it!?

Make sure to watch the credits and see the real photographs of the real people!!

The idea for the film is good and solid. However, it is diluted to the absurd with some weird menage a trois love plat that, if removed, would shorten the movie with a much needed half an hour.